Art? Or Peodophilia?

[flubdub]

Here.
Where do they draw the line?

All the children have their clothes on cuckoo I look at interactions of severely autistic children - various different types of interaction- the only requirement is that they're naturalistic. I either film myself or parent's send in the video (so self select). They provide consent for the research, for the length of time video is stored, for the use of photographs and the use of video at conferences etc.

Most of the children I work with are not capable of saying yes or no - which is why I work with younger children- with older children (12+) the law becomes incredibly complex if children can't provide consent.

Don't like the CK ad at all.

So I guess I'm seeing one as art and one as not.

The 4th and 5th ones on the econd link make me uncomfortable.

yes creepy little miss. Even though they agreed to it, they don't see it objectively, how we see it. There is more at stake than just their own assent (or not).

They are both doing the same thing challenging unacceptable behaviour through art/cinema.

I'm not saying it's unacceptable to take spontaneous(sp) pictures of your own naked children, but i do believe it is to take pictures of other peoples, especially posed.

So... following on from that cuckoo- is it ever ok to photograph children of this age naked - can it ever be done in a way that ensures interpretation is going to be innocent.,

I wouldn't allow my own children to pose for these photos. Think that says it all really.

despite arguing that I think they're artistic I wouldn't allow my children to take part either- but then I wouldn't let them take part in any exhibition (even clothed).

Dittany - is that honestly what you think of my opinion? Give me your definition of the word titilation for me so I can understand what you're saying please.

I thought some of the photos were of boys? Are they all girls? (If all girls would find the exhibition dodgier).

that CK ad is very creepy!

CK ad is horrible

They don't sit comfortable with me. I don't find them beautiful.Ans I wouldn't agree to me child being hotographed in such a way either. Some of the photos are definitely touch and go on whether they are sexualised or not. I don't find them a celebration of spontaneous, pre-pubescent innocence.

What a lot of shit - the guy is deliberately provoking this debate. These works aren't sexualised -he's questioning the whole act of image making and how we can raise issues and critique existing practices by choosing how we make them.

What does everyone think about Jake and Dinos Chapman's 'children'?

Hulababy - that's because they aren't a celebration of spontaneous, pre-pubescent innocence.

Or he could get his kicks from photographing naked teenagers.

umberella - I know, but my comment was made in light of some of the other comments made previously.

IMO assuming that he's a pervert is a bit simplistic and DM-esque.

I felt bemused and repulsed, but not particularly offended by the chapmen 'children'-m can you expand on what you mean by 'questioning the act of image making' - I have children running riot and I'm finding it hard to focus!

hmmm these photos make me feel uncomfortable. Surely they didnt have to be completely naked? What is he trying to show?
Dont like it . At all.

I really can't see these photos as titillating however I try. I can see that some of them could be disturbing (for reasons others have mentioned where it looks as if someone else is out of shot) but really not titillating.